Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(20) The next decisions to which Mr. A.D.Desai referred was the decision of a Division Bench of the Court of Bombay consisting of Patkar and Broomfield JJ., in 33 Bom LR 520 : (AIR 1931 Bom 391). This was also a case relating a Scheme which contained a power in the District Court to remove trustees as also to make alterations or amendments in the rules off Scheme or to add a new rule to the Scheme. An application was made to the District Court under the Scheme claiming in the main two prayers. One prayer was for modification of the Scheme and the other prayer was for removal of two trustees. Both the prayers were covered by the rules in the Scheme. The District Court, however, took the view that the rules were ultra vires as offending Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and accordingly rejected the application as incompetent. The matter was thereupon carried in appeal to the High Court. The High Court held following Jeranchod's case that no appeal lay since the order of the District Court rejecting the application could not be regarded as an order under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure but that the order was liable to be revised by the High Court. The High Court took the view that the rules under which the application was made did not offend Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the application was, therefore, competent, and since the District Court had on an erroneous view of the law failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him, the High Court set aside the order of the District Court and remanded the application to the District Court for disposal on merits. The order of the District Court rejecting the application for removal of trustees was thus interfered with in revision and the District Court was directed to dispose of the application on the merits. This could only be on the footing that the District Court was acting as a Court of Law and not as a persona designata, Patkar J., in terms stated: